File Formats Compatibility

I’d like that Renoise imported correctly the panning columns of .IT Impulse Tracker songs (actually, imported .IT songs into Renoise are monophonic, not stereophonic).

And I’d like that Renoise exported into .IT, .XM, .UMX (“Deus Ex”/“Unreal” SoundTrack file format) and so on… file formats.

Thank you


midi export and I hope import for other older tracker formats (MED :w00t: ) should be a priority after 1.5 final … in my opinion

I think, IT export should be enough, because UMX can be created with a simple level-editor.…/ApplicationFaq

Q:Hello, I would like know if renoise is able to saving his production in other format like mod it or other?

Q:I have to disappoint you, but we dont try to mimic other trackers.
renoise will only save its own fileformat - that would be rns.
Mod, it and xm are supported import formats though.
The import features are still not perfect - and they wont be, since we dont emulate other trackers,
but try to adapt the effects to match renoise specific ones.
we might include midi export in the future, till then you need to stick with wav (registered version) and rns.

I’m curious if we couldn’t get the author of XMPlay or someone with the same level of expertise (I don’t know who that would be though) to improve on the mod/it/xm import. Maybe those of us who are interested in this (or any other feature) could approach him collectively and even give him some incentive (i.e. money) for doing it.

I don’t understand why people seem to demand 100% perfect XM/IT/etc. import functionality?

Renoise is a NEW tracker, a completely new standard. CREATE SOMETHING NEW WITH IT!

Yes, it’s nice to be able to import old projects as a quick start, but come on, people!.. Import the basics if you have to, but build on top of that, create something new, something different, something better than a crappy old XM or IT file!

First of all dblue, the .it’s I’d want to work on in Renoise aren’t necessarily crap. There are certain things which are MADE by the effects, that I’d want to retain, and that is why I’d want a near perfect import of that format, and that’s why I understand why someone else would want any other given format to be imported as correctly as possible.

Second of all, I don’t understand why you use a word like ‘demand’. For that term not to faulter, I could go on to label every feature request/suggestion you’ve ever made here a demand aswell.

Third of all, there are probably requests here from you, that other people don’t understand in the least why you’d want. It’s not at all constructive to reply to a thread about how Renoise is a NEW tracker, but it does increase their post count…

Fourth of all, I don’t know about you, but I want to finish some of what I’ve already begun. Creating something new (which I do too much of I’m afraid) and then leaving it after a few patterns, is getting a bit tedious.

How much of that you’ve already begun in older trackers fell into the tedious left-for-dust-catching category?

If it’s stuff that is actually finished and only require mastering or rendering, yes having good import may be the better option if you want to render to separate tracks.

Wether it will still sound the same… i don’t think so:
Some tricks used in trackers are specific tracker-own tricks, undocumented, yet acquired to use the genuine effect that comes forth from it.
A good conversion of existing formats require the programmer not only to know the tracker it was used in very well, he/she must also know the side-effects of that what is not commonly known.

Have you tried finishing it in it’s original tracker using the DOS emulator?

Just face it: you may have good music in the other formats, If you really desire to finish them in Renoise:render them with players like XMplay and try to rebuild the song from scratch using the same or similar samples.
You might even find some new fresh idea to add using something from Renoise your previous tracker did not had.

Letting things go is part of life everyone has to deal with more than one time in that life. Some occasions a bit more dramatic than others.

I wasn’t implying that your music was crap, so I apologise for the confusion there. I was just saying that things like XM and IT are old formats from another era of tracking, and they’re quickly becoming quite obsolete these days, outside the realm of the demoscene anyway where people still need those simple old formats which can be played in a demo with very little cpu usage.

You’re correct, I have made several feature suggestions here, but they’re all things which I think could improve Renoise and push it forward. I’m not focusing on things like “well, did something in this way, so Renoise should be the same!”. I don’t think the devs should devote too much time to making the importing of old formats perfect, they should focus on pushing the boundries of Renoise further.

Trying to fix up old things can be very time consuming, and there’ll always be weird little bugs appearing from people who used weird old effect commands in bizarre ways, and are upset that Renoise didn’t handle it perfectly, and I think that’s just a bit silly. Renoise is obviously a completely new platform with its own strengths, weaknesses, differences, etc. I think people using Renoise should adapt and focus more on what Renoise can do, not how to perfectly imitate our old favourite programs.

I myself still have hundreds of old XMs and things like that, and I also like to sometimes work on them, improve them, update them, etc. And yes, sometimes Renoise might not import them perfectly, but so what? I’m using Renoise to try and improve these old things, not keep them the same. If I wanted to make a perfect XM I would use FT2. Most of the time I just need the simple note data and basic commands to get started, then I use that to rebuild the whole song in Renoise, adding lots of new stuff to make it better.

If you have an old XM/IT that uses some tricks that Renoise doesn’t handle perfectly, then perhaps you can just render a WAV of that from FT2/ImpulseTracker, then build on top of the WAV in Renoise? Or maybe you can just put more effort into adapting to this new platform, and try to recreate things the way they can be done by Renoise.

My main point is, we cannot keep trying to accommodate all these old standards. Yes they’re oldskool and nostalgic and all that stuff, but in my opinion we should be focusing more on the future of things, not the past. This isn’t 1997 anymore.

Off topic, I’m not sure why you mentioned post count? If you think I’m replying simply to increase my post count, I’ve gotta tell you there are far more important things in my life than a stupid little number. :P

Anyway… no hard feelings in any of this. I’m sorry if my earlier post annoyed you, I didn’t mean it to. I just feel it’s more important to move forward with Renoise, not focus so much on recreating the past 100% accurately. I think a lot of people probably feel the same way.

Alot. Why?

If that was the case, I wouldn’t need Renoise at all. I’d just as easily go with WaveLab or something.
I’d want to use Renoise on older modules because

A) I’m suddenly in a position where I really like what I’ve already done, and working further on them, I’d want my mindset be as close as possible to what it originally was, and
B) like you wrote further down, I have ideas for improving on them in Renoise.

The way it sounds in XMPlay for instance, is ok. I don’t need 1:1, but the closer it is to being an exact copy, the better I suppose.
I’m aware of the talents such a programmer must posess. That’s why I suggested Ian/XMPlay, someone else with comparable ability/experience, or even J. Lim. If any of these have the time and want, they’d be able to do it.

Yes. I’ve actually managed to finish (relative term) a few of them using DOSBox with the GUS emulator. But I’d still want to not only embellish on them, but do extensive work on them in Renoise.

I could make use of XMPlay and do that, but it’s a bother compared to finding an extra developer that would be willing to improve on the import routine.
Both me, and probably most of the other ppl who’d like better import, know that the current devs have alot of work ahead of them, and that working on the import might derail them from other features which are of X importance.

Ok. Let me just stop what I’m doing, because I’d have to let go of it sooner or later anyhow!
This isn’t dramatic at all (not for me atleast), but it’s neither your task nor mine to distinguish for others what is and what isn’t a dramatic occasion. Maybe we should think about that one for a second, before we give out well-intentioned advice.

It’s not about pushing it to be a priority in Renoise. It’s about getting someone to help with the import, because the current devs are MOST UNDERSTANDABLY concerned with other features.

Don’t know whether they are from another era or not. I don’t know what seperates one era from the other. All I know is that I have some modules lying around that I would like to work on in Renoise.

In your mind, they will.

For another

  1. they won’t, but atleast they won’t hinder the experience.
  2. they might be present at the expense of what was there before.
  3. they might be a hinderance that excludes them from using Renoise.

Sure. I happen to think that Renoise importing old module formats well is extending the boundaries of the program. It would allow me to do something that I can’t do atm.
If Renoise can draw ideas from trackers, then why not? There are things in older trackers that alot of ppl here would like to see in Renoise, and that’s besides importing. Old ideas don’t equal bad ideas. New ideas don’t equal good ideas.

I wouldn’t call Renoise a completely new platform. I’d be in error if I did. No one (well not me atleast) is asking for perfect replication of what used to be.

It’s not about making it a perfect XM/IT/MOD etc. From what I remember, XM import is better (maybe not that much?) than IT import. With IT import, alot of the meaning is lost, so to speak.

Effort… I don’t think I’d want to spend too much time recreating what’s already there. Though I would try rejuvenating everything in any case, with better import, I would have more time to focus on making it cohesive and stuff.
Having to emulate myself would be sort of tiresome.

Sure we can. 1997 wasn’t 1987.
You don’t want an oldskool feature like this to be developed at the expense of another, more futuristic feature.
In your mind, what is the ‘future’ about? What are the features of the future?
For me, as of now, I’ll be working on foundations that I have made in the past.

Alot of ppl here seem to just enter threads with this:

Your feature X is totally incomprehensible and it’s not important at all.

I’m not sure why they would do that, except to state that THEY don’t deem it necessary, and therefore, it just isn’t necessary, and the devs better take note of that, because they speak on behalf of most everyone.

Next thing you know, they have an exillion posts.

The poll-system was a good idea to relieve threads of that kind of momentum, but there seems to be something wrong with the poll on the user pages.

It kind of annoyed me. I understand what you feel about moving forward with Renoise, but what gave you the impression that I don’t want that? I do.
It’s, like I’ve explained above, not about recreating the past 100% accurately, but about merging past with present, so that what was done then, will come to fruition now.
Alot of ppl here probably feel like you, but I’m saying that there is no point in arguing over it.
I wasn’t asking for taktik to drop everything and get working on the import function, much like you wouldn’t ask taktik to drop everything and get working on something exciting and new that you want, when he’s on the hunt for some obnoxious bug or is working on a feature he thinks is more important.

He’s written in several threads that if there is a feature request that the devs can’t include, then let another programmer come aboard and try to do it.
Meaning they’ve done something that suddenly seems to be kind of remarkable.
Even though they don’t have time to work on it, they’ve managed to recognise the fact that maybe someone else would want/need that feature.

Just to make a point that it doesn’t really matter if Renoise does support the old format as good or as nearly good as the original.

Let’s start with the fun part (no pun intended)

Renoise is currently the tool for you now in which you have started dozens of few pattern projects that became part of the tedious cycle of dust-catching projects, but you still have a load of the same range laying around from the older tracker era.

Suppose in approx. five years from now, Whoopy-tracker will be the hot thing to use, it has all imports including Renoise format, not you guess:not as perfectly as it should be…
I can predict you would probably complain to the Whoopy-tracker developers that renoise import functionality could be a lot improved as you still have a loadsome of old left-for-dust-catching projects you created in this era, that you would like to finish…

Well, it’s a life and it keeps one and another busy, but i can’t hold myself bringing up the idea to make that attempt to finish your current left-for-dust-catching projects you have in Renoise so far.

Okay… now for the serious part of it:

Another suggestion i could make is: you exchange your old-format songs with those from some other tracker that also has some stuff laying around unfinished and you both try to adapt eachothers songs, that those are practically converted to Renoise. (Do not try to make it too much your own, however, this sometimes may bring another sort of swing to the idea you had in the first place)

The use of that is: you both hear something new and ppl always like to mess around with someone else’s stuff.
It may sound strange, but it’s worth a go.

When done, exchange it and what you don’t like, change or alter to what you want it to be (without criticizing eachother on it). With a little luck you don’t need to change that much.

It was never meant as a complaint in the first place, so that prophecy isn’t going to hold. I suggested those who want this feature (or some other feature) form a secret guild and approach someone and ask them if they could do it.

Whoopy-tracker or not, I guess we’re using Renoise for now. Given that taktik has opened for other devs to join, something the author of Whoopy-tracker might not do, I see this as a viable option, and a chance to actually get those tunes done.

Not sure if the serious part would help or not to reach what I envision for these tunes. I have most of them next to made structurally (i.e. changes, harmonic interplay (if I can call it that)), if not in the origin. tracker, then on paper. It’s just a matter of assembling everything, writing some of the parts and mixing.

That’s true and for your and shared sakes of others i hope the person stands up and commits him/herself to it.
But up to now the only responses i’ve seen upon this gesture are “Yeah, i would love to spend my time in improving that part, but i’m kinda busy with a lot of other things right now.”

Don’t know who it was, i’ve seen a post from someone actually willing to dig into the foreign import functionality of XM / IT formats into Renoise.
It’s still somewhere in the archives here.

again and again and again:

trying to improve old formats compatibility will:

  • waste lot of precious time developers could use to put new functionalities into renoise
  • force the future of renoise to be ticked-based, while the idea is to introduce a tickless environment
  • add a feature which is going to die anyway: what would be the use of XM importing when you will have imported all of your XM files?
  • raise the complexity of playing routines
  • introduce new bugs

given all these and other reasons, DON’T EXPECT TO see XM/IT/WTF support improved.

What about .med support :w00t: Naa, just kidding :)

All was said: Renoise has basic XM-importing functions and some IT-functions are also there. If you have special formats like .669 or .ult or even DMF, try to load them in Modplug and save them as standard-XM. That should do it, I guess.

So, Modplug is not that bad :rolleyes:

WTF import should be top priority imo… :lol:

WTF is already included - Just install some new hardware called “broken RAM” and you will get a lot of BLUESCREENS, so everytime you see that bluescreen, you can say: WTF?

WTF is like XML, it works with almost every application, then… :eek:

just like it-alied wrote… when i wanna go oldskool i create funky XM with fasttracker or maybe sk@le today…


An oldschool-to-rns-converter would probably be a solution without any trouble in the development. I think Renoise would simply have an even better sexappeal if you click on an old module and it plays it quiet good.
(Yes, yes, Renoise has quiet a good sexappeal already and blaaa, it’s okay…)
To me the current question is now: Who would make such a converter which could be embedded in Renoise? This someone should know that she/he may not offer any changes from the usual development but only code the converter. Who would accept the limitations (?) of the .rns-format (e.g. no vibrato sweep) to write a converter for it anyways? Who would have the desire? The coder of ModPlug or XM-Play? Do you think so? And what about the MacOS-compatibility?
I don’t want to destroy any hope. I am also someone who’d love to have the compatibility (just for the sexappeal ;) ). I’m just to weak to imagine anyone who would do this work. If you, hcys, start a project to collect votes and such to ask a coder for this kind of help, then I’m with you.
At least by the end of February. Before that I can’t promise anything.